Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 3, 2011 9:30am-10:00am PDT

9:30 am
districts to investigate it. that is all we are doing, and we agreed to do in a while ago. mr. ritchie? 2003. >> that is a long time. when i emailed people, they said they were surprised this was happening so fast. vice president moran: commissioner courtney's question. >> i was at a hearing last week for cal water, and the chair from the san mateo planning commission was there and ask a lot of good questions, and one of them was, well, with less local water available and other restrictions, where is our water going to come from, because i been approving a lot of housing developments assuming the water is going to be there, but your
9:31 am
plan does not convince me, and whether it is was, "well, we are going to look into desal," and she said that did not make her more comfortable because there is a lot of controversy over that. climate change, using all of this energy to produce a water source piccata adding to greenhouse gases, so i think it is a good point. you're going to hear from organizations that are concerned at some point, and maybe it is better to hear in the first place, because i do not think people believe things are moving forward with dessal, -- desal, and $2,000 is a lot of money, so i think it would begin to notify people that this was on the agenda. vice president moran: any other
9:32 am
further comments? at the wing commissioner caen: 's -- echoing commissioner caen's comments, as we go into this planning effort, none of this stuff is simple. the fact is that if he tried to do more storage any meaningful way, rain barrel do not get you there, very frankly, and its storage is the answer, you may need to look at increasing the size of existing reservoirs, and i made the wrong end am delighted to be wrong, i do not think this is what you have in mind. as we look at all the pressures that are on the system, if we cannot work with a little bit -- local options, we have got to go
9:33 am
back to the other. it is not simple on any side, and i think we're going to get there, and when we get there, i would like to have as down a base as possible about what the dissemination efforts are so we can have a conversation about that. it is also an old project that has been around a long time. it is a new project to be here asked -- as an mou. i, for one, am very comfortable proceeding to this step, and i am sure we will be joined with lots of notice in do time. and with that, if i could have a motion? commissioner caen: i would like to move. vice president moran: is there a sudden?
9:34 am
i will seconded. collins' favor? any opposed? the measure carries. -- all in favor? we need three votes, not a majority but the majority of the commission. commissioner courtney: i would like to move that we carry the item over. vice president moran: we can have a motion to move to continue it. opposed? it carries, said that will be continued to a future meeting. -- so that will be continued. secretary housh: item 12, the
9:35 am
discussion possible action to approve the plans and specifications and award water and a prize water system approved a program funded a contract, the calaveras dam replacement project, a joint venture to construct a new earth and rock fill dam to replace existing calaveras dam in alameda county and perform project-related work in santa clara county. >> commissioners, and julie -- i am julie labonte. sometimes we get complacent, and we get a lot of approvals, but it is good to sit back. but we were very pleased with receiving five bids on this key projects. the lowest bid turned out to be responsible responsive, and we are pleased to secure approval
9:36 am
for the award of this critical contract. i would also like to point out by the way that the winning bidder did commit to a participation of almost 7%, which was higher than the goal, which was 5%, so i think this shows a good favor. >> do you have a specific question? or would you like me to take you through a general overview? do you have a specific question on the process, or would you like -- newmont -- commissioner caen: just to read
9:37 am
it through it. >> to be able to complete the work. the apparent low bidder did not submit or we did not find when we went back and look at the documentation that affidavit. the city attorney's office reviewed all of the documents and the specifications as well as the law on the matter, and they deemed that it goes towards its responsibility to perform its work, not its response of was, so we deemed the protest without merit. vice president moran: commissioners? any of the questions? public comments? >> a great project. so please do got here. kudos to your staff -- so
9:38 am
pleased it got here. vice president moran: thank you. commissioner caen: i would like to make the suggestion that we add something to the resolution, and this goes back to my desire for more storage. when this project first came to was, which was in the year 2000 perhaps, i wanted the dam taller, of course, and under the description of scope of work, it is stated, number one, that the design that could accommodate its enlargement but future generations -- i would like that wording put in the resolution because the scope of work can change, and i want to make sure that this is constructed so we can make it larger in the future if need be, so i would
9:39 am
like to add in the last result where it says "approved plans and specifications which includes a designs that could accommodate potential enlargement by future generations." vice president moran: ok. we have a motion and a second. any discussion on the commission? any public testimony? [laughter] any other public testimony? ok, i have a motion and a second. all of those in favor the motion carries. a contract for a little over quarter of $1 billion. secretary housh: mr. president,
9:40 am
perhaps the next two items -- wait a minute. i have lost myself in the agenda here. vice president moran: mr. secretary, let's just do them one at a time. secretary housh: i know of 13, -- i the number 13, discussion possible action to approve additional increases to the cost and schedule contract contingencies in the amount of $339,000 for a total amount of almost $3.50 million and 705 consecutive calendar days.
9:41 am
vice president moran: commissioners, we have the package in front of us. would you like to have the presentation, or do you have specific questions could ok, then if i could have a motion? moved and seconded. is there any public comment. secretary housh: we have no speaker cards. vice president moran: ok, the motion carries. secretary housh: the next item would be item number 14, the discussion possible action to approve increases to the existing contract cost and schedule for water and a prize, water system improvement program hh-935a, and to authorize the general manager to consider it
9:42 am
is appropriate to approve my invitations to the contract amount and duration for a total of over $16.50 million in 621 consecutive calendar days. vice president moran: ok, do we have questions, or would we like the presentation, or should we vote could -- we vote? do we have a motion? at a second? is there any public comment. -- and a second? is there any public comment? secretary housh: we have no speaker cards. vice president moran: the motion carries. secretary housh: i no. 15, the
9:43 am
discussion possible action to approve modification number 92 water enterprises, water system and prevent program funded contract number with a time extension greather than 10% of the original contract duration. vice president moran: 80. commissioners? any questions? -- thank you. to what have a motion? -- do i have a motion? commissioner caen: second. vice president moran: a motion and a second. secretary housh: we have no
9:44 am
speaker cards. vice president moran: all of those do we have anything for closed session? secretary housh: i do not believe we have any, so if you wish, we can take that off of the calendar. then we can move to additional new business, item 21. vice president moran: ok, commissioners, is there any new business? hearing none, do i have a motion to adjourn? commissioner: adjourned. commissioner caen: seconds. vice president moran: all of those in favor? the motion carries. secretary housh: we are adjourned.
9:45 am
>> welcome to the regular meeting of the plans and programs committee. my name is car men chu. i'm sitting in for the chair of the committee, chair campose, who is, unfortunately, out of town or out of the country at this moment and won't be able to join us in this meeting. we are joined also by
9:46 am
commissioner after lose, commissioner wiener who will be joined shortly by commissioner chiu and perhaps commissioner america reamy. -- mirkarimi. item number two? >> april 19, profl of minutes. commissioner chu: thank you very much. any speaker? seeing none being public comment is closed. we have the motion to approve that item. we can do that without objection. item number three? >> citizens advisory committee report. this is an information item. chu: thank you very much. >> good morning, committee members. i'm brian larkin. i'm here on behalf of the chair and vice chair, neither of whom could make it today. we had four items on our agenda that were also cax items on your
9:47 am
agenda. the ramps recommendation for connection to the bay bridge. staff gave us an elaborate and detailed presentation on the relative benefits which we accepted unanimously with a minimum of discussion. in contrast, on item 5, safe routes to school, we had an inordinate amount of discussion. but ultimately accept the staff's recommendation and with some minor inclusions of future projects and evaluation of walking routes and, again, future projects, future recommendations. we note that the principals of two of the local schools both showed up and spoke in favor of the project, which is all i had to hear. item six was a call for project screening -- pardon me,
9:48 am
screening criteria for the call for local projects in support of sustainable community strategies and regional transit program. we had some discussion on that and were almost unanimous in approving it. it was against the widening of harney way. but other than that, figured that most of the programs -- also, fran would like to have seen more community involvement and selection of the projects that were recommended. the last item was the interchange at candlestick park. the amendment was to request staff to work with bicounty partners to create a mechanism for more community involvement.
9:49 am
chu: thank you for your report. any members of public who wish to comment on item number 3? >> my name is francisco decosta. i do not know if you noticed that when the gentleman was giving the report reportly pointed out that they are dealing with huge projects linked with the southeast sector involving highway 101 south. the widening of the street. the implications are very serious. and one of the ways the san francisco county transportation
9:50 am
authority can address the situation is by having a localized meeting so people can have the best input. we are talking about millions of vehicles that are going to be flying in this area. we are talking about particulates. we are talking about over 10,500 homes plus that are scheduled to be built in this area. so the citizens advisory committee can get some briefings. but what is important is that we get the input from the many qualified constituents who live in the area which is lacking. and oftentimes if you watch this on the television, there's nobody here for public comment because at this time, you know, most people are working.
9:51 am
there are very few advocates. they have stopped coming to these meetings because it goes nowhere. so from time to time i do come because i show my face here, and then i can write about it. and i can write about those representatives who really represent and those who are not doing their job. thank you very much. chu: thank you. next speaker? >> good morning, commissioners. my name is neil, community planner with the san francisco bicycle coalition. i just wanted to speak to the item of bike to work day prop day allocation funding. this was in the advisory committee last month. i just want to reiterate that bike to work day is really one part of an important, long encouragement campaign to meet the city's goals of getting 20% of all trips in san francisco taken by bike. the number has increased. and now we're excited to see that seven in 10 san franciscoians ride a bike,
9:52 am
including many of you who participated last year. for many people, biking becomes a routine activity after starting a bike to work day. in 2010, a gentleman named david slater, an employee of the local start-up, started biking to work. and now he commutes by bike every day. and just this year a woman named elizabeth, the department of labor, rose her bike for the -- rode her bike for the first time and has pledged to regularly become a bike commuter in san francisco. so through san francisco's effective bike to work encouragement campaign and wonderful partnership with the sfmta, hundreds of thousands of people are exposed to messaging through media, marketing, and promotions, and to a wealth of safety information. so thank you. chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to comment on this item, item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. item 4, please. >> option of alternative 2b as the locally preferred
9:53 am
alternative for the yerba buina island ramps. >> good morning, commissioners. the y.b.i. project manager. i am here to update you on the project progress and then ultimately go ahead and discuss the locally preferred alternative. i'll give you a quick overview where we're at in the process. the two alternative that we've studied over the lasts three years discuss the environmental issues, the preferred alternative cost and funding, next steps and recommendation. as most of you know, the egress to and from is very difficult. right now the diagram shows the existing westbound on ramp is just on the east side of the yerba island one tunnel. it is a very short merge, very difficult to traverse in terms of being able to quickly
9:54 am
accelerate and get on to the main span, westbound. and the existing westbound off ramp is on the left side which frankly from a cal transtandpoint is sub standard. so the purpose of this project is to improve that situation. we have prepared a draft of environmental impact report, environmental statement, in cooperation with caltrans. the transportation authority is the -- [indiscernible] the document was issued for public comment. starting on february 25. and comments were received all the way up until april 11 of this year. let's jump into the two alternatives. the no build, as discussed before, very sub standard. and even as part of the bay bridge project, minimal improvements were proposed as part of the project.
9:55 am
alternative 2about. in the diagram, the reconstruction of the westbound offramp is the off ramp in blue. in essence, as you're heading into san francisco on the east side of the island, the off ramp would be on the right side. you would go ahead and get off the off ramp and be able to go left or right. the project also proposes to reconstruct the westbound on ramp. and that is in the color orange. so in essence of what's called a hook-type on ramp where would you proceed on to the ramp and then merge on to the highway before the tunnel. it's important to recognize that as part of this alternative, we do have impacts to the historic district. mean particular, to what are considered building 267 which would have to be relocated as part of this alternative.
9:56 am
alternative 4 is more costly. and after various considerations, the reconstruction of the westbound off ramp once again would be in the color blue, it would come off on the right side but be a little further to the east. and the reconstruction of the westbound on ramp which would be a much more secure distance, longer ramp, would start on south gate road, traverse under the bridge, and back up to westbound deck level. this alternative is quite a bit more costly, has more impacts as we'll go through the analysis here to show you. by the way, i do want to recognize that i'm showing you two alternatives. but over the last three years we probably studied about 10 of them, going through a process to make sure we looked at every
9:57 am
prudent and feasible alternative. these were two selected through the process to go through full environmental evaluation. what you have is a build alternative comparison between alternative 2b and alternative 4. as i indicated before, for example, on the westbound on-ramp, when you compare the two alternatives, alternative 2b is shorter, much more compact ramp. it does allow for a one-lane h.o.v. lane and one mixed flow lane. alternative 4 does not allow for an h.o.v. lane because of the length of the ramp so that's one of the issues related to alternative 4. the westbound off-ramps are similar in nature, for either alternative. widening on macalla road under either alternative. a little more widening under alternative 2b. quarters 10/building 267, as indicated under alternative 2b would have to be relocated, but it would not under alternative 4. and as you can see, there is a pricetag difference here of
9:58 am
about $55 million between the two. i'm going to go ahead now and show you a few slides as it relates to quite frankly the two major issues that we saw from in terms of environmental concerns that were the major issues on the project. first is visual. this is basically taken from the ground level. and this is a computer simulation of the after condition when the bay bridge is open. if there were no new ramps included as part of the project. frankly, the ramps would be hidden on the right side of the bridge structure there, similar to what they are today. so this is, in essence, a view looking towards what's called -- [indiscernible] then as you have here, you've got a comparative between the alternative 2b on the left as you're standing, call it ground level, looking towards the house. and as you can see, the off-ramp
9:59 am
structure that would, in essence, pull off the bridge and tie into macalla road, which is behind the house there. and then you can see, also, too, the new on-ramp structure there behind that ramp there. alternative 4, as i indicated before, you're basically starting on the south side of the island, call it traversing underneath the bridge, and then coming up and tying in with a new ramp structure on the westbound side. so it's basically double the column. so from a visual standpoint, this is an alternative that has more visual impact. just another view. this time look at the nimitz house. if you're in front of the nimitz house looking to the east, alternative 2b and then alternative 4, alternative 4 does come out a lot farther on to the island and also presents additional visual imimpacts. -- visual impacts. and if this works correctly, if you're